Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:37, 18 October 2010 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits →Statement by Vecrumba: would like to see clarification here← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025 edit undoToBeFree (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators128,258 edits →Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion: blocked 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} =
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}}


<includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
== Request for clarification: ] (2) ==
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
]
]


== Amendment request: American politics 2 ==
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Martintg}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|The Four Deuces}}


;Case or decision affected
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
:{{RFARlinks|American politics 2}}
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
=== Statement by Martintg ===
#]
{{cot|Giving up and withdrawing clarification request}}
] (TFD) claims an old clarification from January is still applicable, even though my topic ban has recently been narrowed by amendment. Seek clarification whether this remains the case. To my mind articles about current active national and ethnic disputes like the deleted ], ], ] and ] are the focus of the amended topic ban. Communist topics on the other hand are international in scope as the article in question indicates ]. The cause of this is my attempt to have a reasonable discussion with Paul Siebet , but TFD seems intent on stopping the conversation for some reason.


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
The original topic ban was elastically worded: "about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, ''widely construed''" and thus communist topics fell under it for that reason, despite the fact that communism was an ideology that eschewed ethnicity or national sentiment and communism is now primarily an Asian phenomenon in the 21st century with little connection to Eastern Europe. The question is whether the amended topic ban is actually materially different from the original or is it to be similarly "widely construed", despite the absence of the wording.
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
*{{userlinks|Interstellarity}} (initiator)


; Information about amendment request
Paul Siebert wishes to engage in further discussion, so the Committee needs to decide whether it is for or against promoting constructive dialogue. If the Committee is for it, then please provide some clarity here, if not then uphold TFD's objection and I will pursue something else.
*]
**Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.


=== Statement by Interstellarity ===
====Response to TFD ====
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
Well the concept of "]" is an American ] construct. ] and ] were both initiatives of the US government as part of their Cold War strategy, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic under discussion, as I don't know if the US government ever officially linked the Soviet Union to terrorism (if there are sources let me know). Communism was ideological, it crossed national lines, Balts were instrumental in the formation of the Soviet state, see ] and the first to recognise the state too, see ].
*1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
*2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
*3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
*4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. ] (]) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


:@]: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. ] (]) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It is quite well known that some 70,000 people fled Estonia after the communist takeover in 1940, what is less well known is that some 60,000 people fled Estonia following the failed ], leading to the formation of a number of exile socialist and communist Estonian organisations in the USA. So the split of communist and nationalist sympathies in Baltic society was fairly even, atleast before 1920, proving that communism was an issue of ideology that transcended national boundaries and simply isn't a subject of "national disputes" as stereotypes would have us believe.


=== Comment by GoodDay ===
However I have been proceeding from sources and my only substantive edit to the article was what I thought was a compromise lede (which now seems to have been accepted and remains in the article after TFD edit warred over it ,,, ) based upon those sources. Looking at the talk page my discussion has been reasonably abstract too (I join the discussion at the first bullet point).
''2015'', would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, ''2016''. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. ] (]) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Rosguill ===
I'm trying to engage in meaningful discussion in that article in good faith, but I get the distinct impression that TFD would rather drive away editors by any means, (for example recently biting a newbie ) as a way in solving content issues. I'm of the view that discussion will do more to resolve the underlying content issues. TFD's combative approach only feeds and perpetuates the dispute. If the Committee is okay with that approach, that's your call. --19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


==== Response to Rlevse ==== === Statement by Izno ===
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. ] (]) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Well the Committee did topic ban an unprecedented number of editors, so it is not unusual to expect a proportionate number of requests, clarifications and amendments. I want to get along with others, both Igny and Paul Siebert welcome having a dialogue, only TFD has an apparent issue. This is a simple request for clarification, nothing more, there is no need to agonise over it or turn it into a drama. Your choices are simple:
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
#Communist topics are outside my topic ban, therefore I can happily discuss and build hopefully a lasting concensus; or
#Communist topics are inside my topic ban, l'll go an do something else while this is put on ice and nothing gets resolved in the mean time.
--] (]) 19:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}
====Further Response to TFD ====
I'm not sure what NATO has to do with anything, unless TFD is now claiming any NATO topic falls under the topic ban too. From what I have observed of communist related topics, past content disputes were not along national/ethnic lines but rather along political left-wing/right-wing lines independent of nationality or ethnicity. I assume TFD isn't East European, I'm not East European either, the majority of the participants in the article aren't. But let's invoke the EE card anyway if it helps. There exists in Misplaced Pages editors who apparently hold strong left-wing viewpoints and appear to be every bit as tendentious in their approach as any other.


=== Statement by Kenneth Kho ===
I am gobsmacked by TFD's claim that the text on p218 "does not mention terrorism" here is what is said:
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. ] (]) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:''""''.


=== Statement by TarnishedPath ===
Maybe I am hallucinating, because I am sure that passage just read ''"Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory"''. The resulting text I wrote for the lede which TFD objects too is: ''"Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claim adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during a revolutionary struggle and during the consolidation of power after victory"''. Shrug.
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by Vanamonde===
But TFD still maintains the text "does not mention terrorism" today, even after it was pointed out to him on the talk page weeks ago. What can I say with this level of "yes it did/no it didn't" debate in the article. I give up TFD, you win. I don't want to pursue this any further, it just really isn't worth wasting my time and the Committee's time over this. I'm going to pursue more productive endeavours. I'm striking my statement and withdrawing my request for clarification. --] (]) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. ] (]) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by Igny === === Statement by Aquillion ===
I think if the narrowed topic ban included ''political'' and ''ideological'' disputes we would not have this discussion. However, I personally do not mind if Martin participates in debates there as long as he does not make unilateral changes in the article without gaining unanimous support on the talk page first and as long as his arguments do not fuel edit wars in articles on controversial topics. (] (]) 22:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC))


is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be ''intuitive'', since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --] (]) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


===Statement by Mark Nutley=== === Statement by {other-editor} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
I do not see what communist terrorism has to do with eastern europe? The majority of communist terrorist groups were western european in origin, there are none that i know of from eastern europe in fact. (unless turkey counts as such?)] (]) 07:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Statement by The Four Deuces === === American politics 2: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
Martintg wrote on the talk page, "The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)" He argues to include the Soviet government which was at the center of national disputes since Ukrainians, Balts and other national groups claimed that they had become "captive nations". There is also a question whether the "fighting Communist organizations" of Western Europe were financed or controlled by the Soviet Union. See for example ]. I do not see Martintg taking any interest in other articles about ideology or terrorism, and assume his interest in this article and in ] stems from the fact that they include the Soviet Union. ] (]) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
*
====Response to Martintg====
While the original basis of national disputes in Eastern Europe lies in ethnic rather than ideological conflict, ideological conflict became part of the dispute. Eastern Europeans allied with Communists against the tsar, Germany against the Soviets and now NATO against Russia. One cannot separate out the ideological and national disputes. As for our disputes on the article, you provided a definition that was not supported by the source. is a link to p. 218 of the book ''Understanding Terrorism'' which does not mention terrorism, let alone "communist terrorism". Another editor has set up a second discussion thread about the newbie who has accused other editors (not me btw) of being "apologists for Communist terrorism". I and other editors have pointed out to him that his lengthy talk page postings using primary sources, original research and personal attacks are unhelpful, but he has not taken any of this advice. ] (]) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


=== American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
=== Statement by other user ===
* {{yo|Interstellarity}} I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) ] (] • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->
*The following actions were ] under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
**] indef pending changes
**] indef consensus required restriction
**] indef semi
:All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. ] (] &#124; ]) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
::Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the <em>current</em> regime... ] (] • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ] (]) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ] (]) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
*Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like ] still have recurring issues. - ] (]) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
*Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was ]); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? ] (]) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
*A quick look down ] and ] enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. ] (]) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
:The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... ] (]) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
*I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 ], which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers '']'' and the ], while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the ]. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.{{pb}}History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. ] (]) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)


== Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal ==
=== Clerk notes ===
'''Initiated by''' ] '''at''' 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


;Case or decision affected
=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
:]
*'''Comment''' Why is there an endless parade of arbcases, clarifications, and amendments relating to the EE topics before arbcom? Right at this moment, there are 6 clarifications/amendments at RFAR. To quote ], "...Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible..."? Why is it the same editors from the EE topic keep appearing before arbcom? Can they not learn to get along with one another?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
----


; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
== Request for clarification: DIGWUREN ==
#]
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Petri Krohn}} (initiator)
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->


; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
=== Statement by Petri Krohn ===
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard ]-->
I am seeking clarification on whether I made yesterday to ] '''a)''' constitutes edit warring, '''b)''' is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or '''c)''' is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.
*{{userlinks|Crouch, Swale}} (initiator)


The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.


; Information about amendment request
I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in ] on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.
*]
:*2022 changes


I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically ] – a Misplaced Pages policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that ] sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.


=== Statement by Crouch, Swale ===
Here are three diffs related to my second edit:
Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{tl|checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "] is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All ]'s editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you '''must''' pick one. ''']''' (]) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
:{{Ping|Theleekycauldron}} Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start ] about other users and myself or I start posting ] content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. ''']''' (]) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#
::Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
#


=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.
Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. ] (]) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Statement by {other-editor} ===
On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, ] and ]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes ===
# 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
# An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.
*


=== Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
-- ] (]) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
* Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to '''decline'''. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) ] (] • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

*Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. ] <sup>]</sup>] 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
=== Statement by Vecrumba ===
*Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. ] (] &#124; ]) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see <u>'''the original BRD'''</u> being exempt from the edit revert chain, but <u>'''only'''</u> as long as:
* This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a ]. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - ] (]) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
# the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
* '''Decline''', obviously. I have indefinitely blocked {{u|Crouch, Swale}} in response to ]. ] (]) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
# where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.
In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is ''nullified'', as to not do so would encourage editors to ''circumvent'' #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, ]<small> ►]</small> 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.<p>As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to ''any'' revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: EEML ==
'''Initiated by ''' <sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> '''at''' 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Piotrus}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Piotrus ===
I am seeking a clarification of ] currently in effect to my person that states: " topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed".

Few days ago I asked a public question of the Committee ], proposing a potential solution for the ongoing disputes in EE area. I did so believing that a good-faithed comment on how to improve dispute resolution (not concerning articles) does not violate my topic ban. Now I have second thoughts, and I would appreciate a ruling on whether I was allowed to post there on this subject and whether I can keep participating in the discussion (or should I self-revert all my edits there?).

My rationale for thinking I am allowed to start and participate in that discussion is as follows:
* it is not a process discussion about EE content (I am topic banned from "articles about Eastern Europe" and discussions of them), but a (good-faithed, no-parties named) discussion about generic editor behavior in that area and how it may be improved. I always understood the "process discussions" part of the ban as ban from content-related things like AfDs, FAs, WikiProject pages and such, and the word "same" to refer to any "articles about EE", but not a ban from being able to discuss the EEML case itself (which would obviously prevent me from feeling the amendment or clarification requests) and wider, non-article specific circumstances surrounding it (which is what that particular discussion is);
* my thoughts are based on the discussion(s) seen at my Amendment request, where I am obviously allowed to post, but which is not the best place for threaded discussion, hence another place had to be found and I concluded that the public Committee discussion page is the best forum for it;
* it is a question directed (publicly) to the Committee, on the official Committee pages, hence I hope it is obvious it was never intended to be a "topic ban evasion" or such;

Hence I believe my post there and subsequent comments do not violate my topic ban. Would this be a correct belief?

If my participation in that thread is not proper, I am ready to self-revert at any time. Also, till such a time as there is consensus here that I can participate there, I will not do so. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Strictly speaking, this ''is'' a violation of the ban. That said, good faith dispute resolution is generally considered an exception and I would be disinclined to pursue a sanction in a case like this even though it doesn't ''exactly'' qualify. On the third hand, the entire EE area suffers from ''waaaay'' too much bickering and the topic bans were made to help the participants disengage.<p>In other words, it was okay-ish enough; discussing other involved editors (specifically or obliquely) is a very bad idea, but I'm not about to curtail genuine attempts to improve the area. Thread carefully, and remain constructive and I doubt you'll find opposition. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
*Generally agree with Coren here. ] (]) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: Speed of light ==
'''Initiated by ] (]) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' ]
*{{userlinks|Hell in a Bucket}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Count Iblis}}

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== Statement by Hell in a Bucket ===
There have been comments made about Iblis and myself being disruptive in ''recent'' discussions regarding Brews Ohare. While I do not deny I have civility issues and prior to the sanctions being imposed it was a fairly common occurrence. However since the sanctions were lifted I do not feel my actions or Iblis has crossed the line. On a recent mistaken block Risker made a comment saying that Iblis was reverting to disruptive editing habits and which was also eventually directed at myself. ]I am concerned because this is not at all clear to me, I can understand blocking for incivility or attacks but this one escapes me. I've tried raising the issues with people making comments that were similar and no one is willing to answer the question. I understand this is and has been a huge headache for all invovled but some clarification here would be great, really not looking to be sanctioned again. ] (]) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

'''@ Risker''', I can understand the meatpuppet part of things. Hadn't really thought of it that way. This however is only one instance that the whiff of puppetry has been shown. Is there anything else? ] (]) 14:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

:'''Reply to WGFInley''' Your blaming me for beseting you when clearly you did not research the issue fully and is pretty amusing. Maybe you should look, read ''then and only then'' block. You want to get to the nitty gritty you performed a poor admin action, poorly thought through and not at all researched. It is hardly meatpuppetry to contest a bad block. If this was the case every thread asking for a block review on ANI is meatpuppetry. ] (]) 14:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Count Iblis ===
Georgewilliamherbert read what I wrote on the AE page and

{{cot|Detailed explanations and responses}}

{{cot|Detailed explanation of AE involvement}}
Obviously when asked by another editor to get involved in an area where you are normally not involved, one has to be very careful. I think I did act with care when Brews told that he wouldn't be able to edit Misplaced Pages for a few weeks and wanted me to keep an eye on an article. That was before any AE request was filed, the issue was merely the possibility of an article getting deleted without much input from univolved editors.

I didn't get involved myself, rather I informed the person who Brews was talking to on the talk page that Brews wasn't going to edit for quite a while. saw that there was an AE request and I there that Brews wasn't going to edit Misplaced Pages. Saying that "I'm Brews advocate" was a bit of joke, but it is also to indicate that I'm bringing some information originating from Brews (the fact that he is absent and that he asked me t take look at certain articles). The AFD that I mention there was the previous AFD, the current AFD is different and has more participants. I got involved in neither of them. What I set out to do on Brews behalf was to merely monitor if there is suffcient review from math editors. In case there hadn't been, I would have raised the issue at Wiki-Project math. David did get involved in the latter AFD, but then he has a history of editing such articles together with Brews.

I also mentioned on the AE page that I asked Hans Adler to take a look at the articles in question and give his opinion on Brews conduct. So, I think I did put all the information I had on the table, I didn't get involved myself in any disputes on Brews behalf, in the sense of putting forward Brews' arguments on which decisions are going to be based at AFD or AE. I clearly stated what is my opinion and what information Brews had communicated to me on the AE page, and I made an effort to get the issues reviewed by indpendent editors of good standing here. The latter issue was the main objective and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
{{cob}}

There have been other recent incidents where people have been making accusations based on vague perceptions. I suggested to Georgewilliamherbert a better way to deal wit this. Also, I explained what the relevant issues with Brews and me are as far as editing articles here is concerned. ] (]) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{{cot|Reply to protonk:}}
Protonk: "I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case."

Good, that suggests that you are interested in this case.

Protonk: "It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy)."

How do you define "advocates" here? I have never advocated for Brews views as far as defending any edits he intends to make in Misplaced Pages. Advocating for Brews topic ban to be reversed was done by me a long time ago to a,imited degree, but I did later try to find compromizes which could hardly be called "acts of advocacy".


Protonk: "I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban naming these editors."

This assumes that ArbCom acted based on carefully examing the evidence. They didn't because I was restricted without having advocated to any significant degree, let alone in a disruptive way. So, you are wrong on this point as well.

Protonk: "When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally.""

No, it didn't. You seem to forget that I am an expert in theoretical physics who happens to edit physics pages, who has some physics pages on his watchlist, who can happened to agree with Brews about an example with a figure being added into the centrifugal page, who found the charge that such an example is Original Research to be preposterous and inflamatory. I say then that Brews should find a compromize and make the example shorter, because other editors do have the right to "not like the figure", however frustrating that can be. I reverted to Brews's version once, because removing the example on OR grounds was nonsense.

I took the matter to AN/I only after Brews was warned on his talk page because of the OR complaint and that only when Jehochman warned Brews becuase of that. The way the OR warning was given was entirely misleading (the editor in question made a link to the speed of light issues).

The AN/I discussion led to a review by other physics experts (apart from generating the typical noise), all of the univolved physics experts agreed with me that the section Brews wanted to add was not OR, nothwithstanding other possible legitimate objections one could have ()article bloating, too textbook like etc. etc..

After that AN/I debate, Jehochman, Brews and I continued discussions on my talk page on a friendly tone. I suggested to Brews that he should consider contributing to Wikibooks, because the topics he likes to contribute to here in Misplaced Pages are edited by people who push back quite hard on edits that are a bit textbook like. This is unlike the areas I have been contributing to (e.g. I haven't experienced much problems in the field of thermodynamics here when making such edits).

Conclusion: Protonk has a poor understanding of the details of this case, he doesn't understand what motivates me. The problem is that he acts in a way that suggest that he has looked into this case in detail (as per my first reply above), giving false credence to the positions he takes.
{{cob}}

More to the point (replying to Protonk was a huge diversion, but unfortunately it is necesary to ] to not let false claims go unchallenged), the nature of the topic area (physics, not politics) and my contributions to this topic area (I have made many edits of a technical nature) should have made it clear that there cannot be any "advocacy" to speak of as far as editing articles is concerned. No hair on my head would even think of arguing for Brews topic ban to be lifted/shortened/modified or whatever, if I didn't believe that he can do something useful here. Lately, I've tried to convice Brews that he is the ideal person to make good quality contributions to WikiBooks.

This whole overreaction about my actions doesn't bode well for the climate change case. If straightforward issues cannot be assessed and acted on properly, then there is zero chance things will go well after the climate change concludes and the discretionary sanctions regime comes into force. I predict the same mess as we've seen on the General Sanctions board. ] (]) 01:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously ArbCom has forseen the possibility of the trouble I'm referring to above and this is why Remedy 3 is being proposed also for good editors like Polargeo and KimDabelsteinPetersen, but I don't think that will matter much. ] (]) 17:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
{{cob}}

;The reality that many people see advocacy/meatpuppetry for Brews
That's perhaps the case, but it is always without evidence. The core part of Misplaced Pages are its articles, and there clearly haven't been any problems there. There are no brainless defenses of Brews edits, like reverting to Brews version without good arguments (I think I only made one revert to a verson preferred by Brews in the last few months for good reasons). Then on peripheral issues in meta discussions etc. one can get certain perceptions, but then that part of Misplaced Pages is similar to any other social medium where false ideas can easily spread and take hold. Compare to Obama not being born in the US, ] is quite sure about this. ] (]) 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

;What Arbcom previously found
Please carefully read on the speed of light ArbCom file the Findings of Facts, the discussions and the final decision of the Arbitrators leading them to impose the advocacy restriction. What you find is.... well, uhm...... nothing, nada, zilch. ArbCom passed the moton without any discussions or any findings, they just did this to have a quiet period surrounding Brews. Brews topic ban as to be lifted in 90 days and in hat 90 day period no disputes should not escalate.

While I disagreed with being restricted, I also decided to stick to this and not try to contest it (which would have been rather difficult anyway, give that the restriction barred me from talking about Brews in any way). But, given that there was no normal case in which evidence was presened to motivate this decision and that no defense was mounted, one cannot now invoke the mere fact that the restriction was imposed as strong evidence that there had been improper behavior. You really have to point to diffs from late last year or early this year to directly point out bad behavior. That's also in general the right thing to do; I'm always willing to discuss and accept criticisms about specific things I am alledged/judged to have done wrong.

In general, I would say that on Misplaced Pages, simply agreeing to disagree and moving forward is a good thing. Typically, in ArbCom cases, ArbCom can decide that someone who hasn't actually done a lot wrong, should stay out of area X to keep the peace (the situation can be polarized and "being right" isn't always the same as "being helpful"). Accepting such a decision should be promoted, precisely because it goes against natural instinct not to "defend your rights". But if history is later going to be rewritten along the lines of: "There was so much disruption and bad behavior that ArbCom took the unprecendented step of barring that editor from being involved in area X", in order to argue that present behavior which is normal for any other editor is not ok. for the editor in question, then this will undermine the whole idea of editors agreeing to move on. ] (]) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

===Comment by Brews ohare===

The position of Risker echoed by SirFozzie is unsupported nonsense. As I was to be absent for several weeks, and expected Blackburne to recommend an article for deletion that I had created just prior to leaving, I asked Count Iblis to link should the AfD arise. That is all that was meant by his "acting as my advocate", an unfortunate choice of words. He was simply a messenger. ] (]) 18:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
:''' Risker & SirFozzie''' have decided to represent any support of myself in arbitration as , depicting dissent as a violation of WP policy. Now '''WGFinley''' adduces as "contextual" support the short response time of Dr K in drawing attention to Finley's unwarranted block, not of myself but of ]. Wow, what a generous apology for thoughtless behavior! On reflection, these administrators' "meatpuppetry" campaign sounds like a great precedent to bring up ''against my (speedy) detractors'' in these arbitration brouhahas, should these innuendos ultimately find traction. ] (]) 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Although disavows any connection between ''advocacy'' and ''motive'', it is apparent that the enforcement of a ban against advocacy would be unnecessary if it were thought that simple statement of of arguments supporting a point of view were involved. Rather, this ArbCom action suppressing advocacy supposes some objectionable disruption that must be stopped, which as it happens was never the case. This ban was censorship of dissent, not an action to protect WP. ] (]) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The recent comment by ] accuses ] and ] of "routinely" showing up to "defend" Brews. That characterization should be examined more closely. The appearance of ] and ] in disputes involving me ''never'' has been "routine" (suggesting no thought went into it, it was just matter of course) and ''never'' has been a "defense of Brews" (suggesting that their entry is only because it is myself involved, and nothing else). In contrast to the incorrect claim that these editors say that "I can do no wrong", these editors have in fact often suggested to me means to reconcile my difficulties, ranging from leaving to go to Citzendieum or to Wikibooks, to other recommendations (like mentoring) should I wish to stay put on WP. ] should re-examine the history of events.

I wish I could say that it is amazing that administrators, with important responsibilities to be accurate in their statements and to consider carefully the facts, often do neither. It is unfortunate to see once more a simple appeal for clarification being perverted to become a retrial of past behavior, and made into an effort to wedge open the door to extended sanctions. It is one more example of something I have come reluctantly to understand - ''never, never, never'' go to arbitration. Whatever you want to discuss or clarify <u>will not be addressed</u>: instead the occasion will be recast by old adversaries to extract another pound of flesh and enjoy old-fashioned revenge in a venue where fact, fairness and the good of WP have no bearing. ] (]) 19:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

===Statement by ] (]) ===
I'm not a participant to the case, but I have commented on the myriad requests for amendment, community intervention and other discussions spawned by this case. It is plain to me that Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are acting as advocates for Brews, though such an observation doesn't involve any inference as to their motives (or the actions of Brews to spur this advocacy). I suspect this is plain to the committee as well, as they took the unprecedented step of creating an advocacy ban ''naming'' these ] . When that ban expired, advocacy continued apace, expanding to general haranguing of editors on physics related topics until Brews was topic banned from physics editors generally. ] (]) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by ] ===

I was recently working on the ] referenced earlier. I saw Count Iblis' advocacy statement there and misread the status of the numerous sanctions on this case. I thought that Count was still prohibited from advocacy of Brews and I blocked him for 24 hours and notified him on ]. Within 20 minutes of this action my ] by multiple parties namely Dr.K and Hell In A Bucket. After things calmed down a bit I was able to determine the sanctions were lifted and I removed the block.

I wish to chime in for two reasons:
# The decision page for this case is virtually impossible for an admin trying to do his job to follow. There needs to be a way to either rollup or break out sanctions that have been rescinded, modified, etc.
# I am unfamiliar with the totality of this case and its numerous changes but one thing remains clear, it appears several users are acting in concert, whether that is to the level of being a meatpuppet for Brews I leave that for the committee to decide. --] (]) 22:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Dr.K====

First, my apologies for not notifying you I thought you were already mentioned and clearly you were not, that was my mistake.

Having done a lot of admin work in conflict areas like Palestine-Israel, a bit in Macedonia, you see patterns as I do here. In this case I blocked a user and two other users, very familiar with the status of various sanctions, came to his defense within minutes (the number, timing and Hell's initial demeanor inspired my choice of the word "beset") before he even spoke for himself. In and of itself it's not necessarily proof of anything. However, in context, it could further substantiate the ] and ] concerns Arbcom previously found concerning Brews and thus levied sanctions. --] (]) 13:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dr.K. ===
I just read the statement above by WGFinley and I felt that I had to ask for a clarification. I was not planning to attend this particular activity but the statement above is sufficiently unclear in my opinion to require some explanation. So I ask, is WGFinley implying that I had some connection with HIaB in acting to alert him about Count Iblis' wrongful block? Did I do something wrong in trying to alert him? Am I somehow under suspicion? I thought that through my exchanges with WGFinley and after numerous clarifications between us and some apologies the matter was settled. Now I see that I am mentioned by him in some vague statements. I am disappointed to see this but I hope it is a misunderstanding on my part of the statement by WGFinley. I also hope that the vagueness of WGFinley's statements about me is not intentional. I also strongly object to WGFinley's use of the verb "beset" which has a primary dictionary definition of "to attack on all sides; assail; harass: to be beset by enemies; beset by difficulties." If informing an admin in good faith for the plight of a wrongfully blocked fellow editor is translated as "besetting" said admin this reflects very sadly indeed on good faith communication between editors on Misplaced Pages. I can assure him that if he thinks that I beset his talkpage by letting him know about the wrongfulness of the block that I will never visit his talkpage again. I am simply not interested in communicating with anyone who thinks that I beset their talkpage just by trying to correct an obvious error by leaving a brief and polite message. I hope that such use of the verb "beset" does not imply that there should be a class system under which the plebeian common editors are reminded they had better mind their own business and not upset the ruling admin aristocracy by trying to communicate with them, even in the face of wrongful blocks. Finally is it customary for a non-participating user to be mentioned in a hearing and not get a courtesy notice about it on their talkpage? I do hope I get some straight answers as much as I hope my forced participation in this hearing to be as brief as possible. Thank you. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

====Response to WGFinley====
Thank you for your non-reply. Unfortunately you just verified my worst fears about your incompetent and vague statements about me. First you seem to be making a lot of mistakes in your statements lately. You thought that I was part of this case. Well I was not and I expect higher standards of behaviour and cluefulness especially from an admin and one aspiring to get involved in Arbitration matters. You have not answered any of my concerns and you made things worse by insisting on weaseling ideas around about tag-teaming and meatpuppetry. I take this as a personal attack. You use the mere coincidence of the timing of my reaction with HiaB against me and you imply malicious things about me. But don't worry. I do not take your statements and insinuations seriously. Your behaviour thus far, full of mistakes as it is, is a clear indication of the quality of your scurrilous assertions. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition I know that I came in good faith and thinking I was performing my wiki civic duty to your talkpage to inform you about your mistake in blocking the Count. After some hesitation you appeared receptive and you undid the block while apologising "all round" to use your expression. Then you come here unbeknownst to me and not informing me to make all these weasel accusations against me. I content that in light of your all around apologies during the block incident your actions here are logically and morally inconsistent and your accusations against me way off the mark. You don't apologise to people that you think beset you and are tag teamers and meatpuppets. This paints a picture of inconsistent and incompetent actions not befitting someone with AE enforcement responsibilities. ]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 17:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I'll repeat what I just said on my talk page: The fact that Count Iblis directly refers to himself as Brews' advocate in the recent arbitration enforcement request, and states clearly that he is acting on Brews' behalf, is precisely the type of advocacy that the prior sanctions were intended to address. Many administrators would consider it meatpuppetry, which is against policy. The fact that neither of you see this as inappropriate is a major part of the problem. ] (]) 15:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
*Echo Risker's comments above, and note the current AE request regarding this current area. Count's words may have been "unfortunate", as Brews Ohare as stated, but it reflects a reality that many of us see, that Count Iblis, Hell Inn a Bucket, and other editors act as advocates/meatpuppets for Brews Ohare. ] (]) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
*I think what Count Iblis and Hell in a Bucket are missing here is that when they routinely show up to defend Brews, at length, in various venues, it begins to wear on everyone and regardless of their intent, looks like advocacy. If you have real interest in helping another editor, assisting them in resolving their problems is always going to actually help - pretending those problems don't exist and they can do no wrong just makes the problem worse. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

----

Latest revision as of 20:24, 22 January 2025

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 22 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Interstellarity

I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.

  • 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
  • 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
  • 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
  • 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.

I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Izno

This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Kenneth Kho

The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/1064925920
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/1064925920


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • 2022 changes


Statement by Crouch, Swale

Please either site ban me or remove the restrictions completely. If you site ban me please block with account creation, email and talk revoked and also block my IP address(es) with {{checkuserblock}} including blocking logged in users so that I have no way to contribute to here again and say I can't appeal for 10 years or never, the choice is yours but I'm not prepared to go on as is. And yes unlike last month's request this does count as an appeal but it does include the first option of a full site ban. And yes doing either of these options won't be much effort and would make you're lives easier. Option A motion would say "Crouch, Swale is indefinitely site banned from Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed from January 2035" or could include no appeal ever allowed. Option B motion would say "All Crouch, Swale's editing restrictions are revoked". Which one are we going to go along with? but you must pick one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Why can't you site ban me, if you won't do that would you like it if I start posting personal information about other users and myself or I start posting libel content. I could just go on disrupting Misplaced Pages until you site ban me therefore it would be easier to just do it here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Put it simply would mean I am both officially banned and technically unable to contribute which would be easy and simple rather than only a technical block which isn't the same thing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Conspicuously missing here is any indication of why arbitrators should take either course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Crouch, you haven't given any reasons this appeal should be accepted. Combine that with the insistence on a siteban otherwise, which I think is inappropriate, and I have to vote to decline. However, if your appeal is declined and you still want to follow through, feel free to reach out to me on my talk page for a self-requested block. It'd be a sad goodbye, but I'd do it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Crouch, could you please put together a solid unblock request? Explain why you understand the restrictions were imposed, and why they're no longer necessary. Please, take your time. A day, a week if you must. But think about this very seriously. Asking for "liberty or death" is not going to work. I could vote to remove your restrictions, if you show that you understand how to act going forward. CaptainEek ⚓ 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Concur with Eek. Please reconsider what you've written here; I'd likely be inclined towards lifting your restrictions but this request is immensely disappointing. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This request is not a compelling reason to consider any action on our part, especially not one that presents the issue as a false dilemma. If you wish to stop editing, then stop editing. If you wish to be blocked, many admins are willing to impose a self-requested block. But that we are not going to ban you just because you ask (because we don't do that) is not a reason to consider lifting editing restrictions. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline, obviously. I have indefinitely blocked Crouch, Swale in response to Special:Diff/1271154047. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions Add topic